Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on September 10, 2024.
Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 10, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ”processing unit” in claim 1, 13, 14, and 16-22; and “modules”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are NOT being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are NOT being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification [para. 44] and [para 78, respectively] as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 13-22 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 1-12 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-22 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 13 (representative of independent claim(s) 1) recites the following steps:
A method for regulatory lifecycle management of a drug substance or drug product with regulatory intelligence, the method
receiving, a request pertaining to accessing one or more projects from one or more registered entity
authenticating, the entity, and upon authentication, parsing the received request, wherein the authenticated entity is classified into one of multiple groups;
identifying a dataset associated with the one or more projects from the parsed request based on access rights assigned to the entity for the development of the corresponding project;
granting, access to at least a portion of the identified dataset to the entity based on the classified group of the entity; and
allowing, the entity to perform one or more operations, over the accessed portion of the dataset, wherein the one or more operations comprise any or a combination of creation, modification, deletion, reviewing, comment, approval, rejection, authoring, and uploading.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) managing the lifecycle of a product and managing the review process (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 13 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim 1 is determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
a processing unit,
an electronic device
A system for regulatory lifecycle management of drug substances or drug products with regulatory intelligence, the system comprising: a processing unit comprising a processor coupled with a memory, wherein the memory stores one or more instructions executable by the processor to (Claim 1)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of "by a processing unit " and/or " an electronic device" serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of "by a processing unit " and/or " an electronic device; "serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more5' (see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 3, 15, fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as
identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, 9-12, 14, 16-19 and 22 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
a database
the system
an electronic device;
a central server
a computing device that is in communication with the electronic device
one or more modules
by a processing unit
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 7, 8, 20 and 21 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
the uploaded submission
upload the updated submission data
The additional elements of the dependent claims serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (2003/0051144) in view of Rockey (2005/0108232).
Claims 1 and 13
Williams discloses limiting credentials and authorization requirements to just the specific parts of specific instances of the forms:
authenticate the entity (Williams [0051]), See at least “If the application is approved, the CA emails the physician a secure pin, which in combination with the application serial number is used to authenticate the physician to the MEDePass issuing application.”
upon authentication, parse the received request, wherein the authenticated entity is classified into one of multiple groups (Williams [0046][0069]) Where the groups are Certificate Authority [0046]; (HME, HHA, clinical support personnel and physician) [0026]; Supplier 316, Physician 308, Physician's Staff 312, and Third Party Payor 324 [0035]
identify a dataset associated with one or more projects from the parsed request based on access rights assigned to the entity for development of the corresponding project (Williams [0024]); See “The present invention not only limits access to those who are authorized but further restricts access to those who provide credentials to prove their identity in addition to their authorization. The present invention limits those providing credentials and authorization to just the specific parts of specific instances of the forms (emphasis added).”
grant access to at least a portion of the identified dataset to the entity based on the classified group of the entity, wherein the system allows the entity to perform one or more operations, through the electronic device, over the accessed portion of the dataset, wherein the one or more operations comprise any or a combination of creation, modification, deletion, reviewing, comment, approval, rejection, authoring, and uploading (Williams [0024]). See “The present invention limits those providing credentials and authorization to just the specific parts of specific instances of the forms. The system is further improved by the tracking of all modifications to the instances of the form. The modifications are tracked so as to record what was changed, when was it changed, and who was the credentialed authorized party that made the changes.”
Williams does not explicitly discloses the request. Rockey teaches:
a processing unit comprising a processorSee at least “a method of managing an approval process for a submittal that includes the steps of granting access to an internet accessible system to a first set of users; permitting a first user of said first set of users to tender a first submittal to said internet accessible system; recording said tender of said first submittal in a log accessible by said first set of users via said internet accessible system; automatically issuing a notice of the tender of said first submittal to at least a second user of said first set of users via said internet accessible system; providing access to said first submittal to said second user of said first set of users via said internet accessible system and permitting said second user of said first set of users to perform a first action relating to said first submittal;.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of limiting those providing credentials and authorization to just the specific parts of specific instances of the forms, as taught by Williams, receiving requests from registered entities, as taught by Rockey, to streamline and expedite the approval and review process.
Claims 2 and 14
Modified Williams and Rockey disclose the limitations above. Modified Rockey further teaches:
wherein a database associated with the system is integrated with drug regulatory authority guidelines and regulations associated with one or more jurisdictions, wherein the system is configured to: provide the entity with the drug regulatory authority guidelines and regulations of the one or more jurisdictions while performing the assigned actions on the dataset at each stage of the project development; and grant access and allow the entity to perform the one or more operations on the dataset at each stage of the project development based on the regulatory regulations of the corresponding jurisdiction (Rockey [0026]). See at least “a method of managing an approval process for a submittal that includes the steps of granting access to an internet accessible system to a first set of users; permitting a first user of said first set of users to tender a first submittal to said internet accessible system; recording said tender of said first submittal in a log accessible by said first set of users via said internet accessible system; automatically issuing a notice of the tender of said first submittal to at least a second user of said first set of users via said internet accessible system; providing access to said first submittal to said second user of said first set of users via said internet accessible system and permitting said second user of said first set of users to perform a first action relating to said first submittal;”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of limiting those providing credentials and authorization to just the specific parts of specific instances of the forms, as taught by Williams, granting access registered entities, as taught by Rockey, to streamline and expedite the approval and review process.
Claims 3 and 15
Modified Williams and Rockey disclose the limitations above. Modified Williams further teaches:
wherein the group of the entity comprises any of administrator, approver, reviewer, and doer, and wherein the dataset includes any or a combination of a document, a folder, and a file (Williams [0024]); See “The present invention not only limits access to those who are authorized but further restricts access to those who provide credentials to prove their identity in addition to their authorization. The present invention limits those providing credentials and authorization to just the specific parts of specific instances of the forms (emphasis added).” See also [0046][0069]) Where the groups are Certificate Authority [0046]; (HME, HHA, clinical support personnel and physician) [0026]; Supplier 316, Physician 308, Physician's Staff 312, and Third Party Payor 324 [0035]
Claims 4 and 16
Modified Williams and Rockey disclose the limitations above. Modified Williams further teaches:
wherein during registration, the system maps, through one or more tags, the entity with authentication data comprising any or a combination of a generic or proprietary name tag, a product tag, a company tag, a route of administration tag and a performance tag, and correspondingly generates and stores a set of credentials in a database ,wherein when the entity feeds the set of credentials into the system, the system authenticates the entity using the stored set of credentials, and correspondingly identifies the access rights, and grants access to the authenticated entity (Williams [0024]). See “The present invention limits those providing credentials and authorization to just the specific parts of specific instances of the forms. The system is further improved by the tracking of all modifications to the instances of the form. The modifications are tracked so as to record what was changed, when was it changed, and who was the credentialed authorized party that made the changes.”
Claims 5 and 17
Modified Williams and Rockey disclose the limitations above. Modified Williams further teaches:
allow tracking and monitoring of the one or more projects and the corresponding dataset in real-time using the electronic device; and create one or more reports on the status of the one or more projects and the dataset associated with the corresponding project using the electronic device (Williams [0024]). See “The present invention limits those providing credentials and authorization to just the specific parts of specific instances of the forms. The system is further improved by the tracking of all modifications to the instances of the form. The modifications are tracked so as to record what was changed, when was it changed, and who was the credentialed authorized party that made the changes.”
Claims 6 and 18
Modified Williams and Rockey disclose the limitations above. Modified Williams further teaches:
wherein the system is configured to: facilitate the administrator to extract parameters of a designated project among the one or more projects, and correspondingly create and add one or more templates for a document associated with the designated project in a database using the electronic device; and allow the one or more registered entity to access the added template based on the requirement and the access rights assigned to the entity, to enable the preparation of the document using the electronic device (Williams [0037]). See “the Supplier 316 does not reach for one of the preprinted forms but rather accesses a form template on a Form Server 404.”
Claims 7 and 19
Modified Williams and Rockey disclose the limitations above. Modified Rockey further teaches:
wherein the system enables the approver to create, edit, and delete the project (Rockey [0053]) See The first reviewer [approver] can take an approval action by clicking on the large green "Approve”… A drop down menu 236 on this screen includes a number of options, including, but not limited to, approved, accepted, revise and resubmit, reviewed, rejected, etc., that the first reviewer can select.”
create and upload a submission corresponding to a structure of the one or more templates, and wherein the system is configured to dynamically provide the regulatory authority guidelines and regulations from the databaseSee at least “The system will allow specifically for the submittal creator to upload the submittal to the system and forwards notification of the submittal posting to the first reviewer. The first reviewer will be able to review the submittal, indicate corrections and/or comments, mark the submittal as reviewed.” See [0051] for template.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of limiting those providing credentials and authorization to just the specific parts of specific instances of the forms, as taught by Williams, the details of access rights, as taught by Rockey, to improve the approval chain (Rockey [0003]).
Claims 8 and 20
Modified Williams and Rockey disclose the limitations above. Modified Rockey further teaches:
wherein the reviewer accesses the system, and approves or rejects the uploaded submission, wherein upon approval, the system uploads the corresponding data on the database (Rockey [0023]). See at least “Another aspect of the invention is to provide an electronic manifestation of the submittal approval process that allows the entire process, including any comments, comment files, action requests, document history and other useful support data about a given submittal, to be tracked electronically by uploading submittal documents to the system,”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of limiting those providing credentials and authorization to just the specific parts of specific instances of the forms, as taught by Williams, the details of access rights, as taught by Rockey, to improve the approval chain (Rockey [0003]).
Claim 9 and 21
Modified Williams and Rockey disclose the limitations above. Modified Rockey further teaches:
wherein in case the reviewer rejects the submission, the system allows the doer to rectify errors in the corresponding data and subsequently allows the doer to upload the updated submission data for the review of the reviewer (Rockey [0010]). See at least “Review-This term is used to describe action taken by the first reviewer, additional reviewer, or final approver. This action can include, but is not limited to, review, approve, approve with comments, accept, accept with comments, revise and resubmit, reject, make corrections noted, no action taken, and review for accuracy.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of limiting those providing credentials and authorization to just the specific parts of specific instances of the forms, as taught by Williams, the details of access rights, as taught by Rockey, to improve the approval chain process (Rockey [0003]).
Claim 10
Modified Williams and Rockey disclose the limitations above. Modified Rockey further teaches:
wherein the processing unit is associated with any of the electronic device , a central server that is in communication with the electronic device, and a computing device that is in communication with the electronic device and/or the server (Rockey [Claim 27]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of limiting those providing credentials and authorization to just the specific parts of specific instances of the forms, as taught by Williams, the technology requirements, as taught by Rockey, to streamline and expedite the approval and review process.
Claim 11
Modified Williams and Rockey disclose the limitations above. Modified Williams further teaches:
wherein the system is configured to allow creation of a repository of the data used in the project for filing a dossier in the one or more jurisdictions, wherein the dossier comprises one or more modules comprising administrative information and prescribing information; common technical document summaries, quality, nonclinical study reports and clinical study reports (Williams [0083]). See at least “The database 410 records the changes made, who made the changes, how the user was credentialed, and the date/time of the change.”
Claim 12
Modified Williams and Rockey disclose the limitations above. Modified Williams further teaches:
wherein the system enables allocation of the projects to the one or more entity for each of the modules of the dossier and allow each of the one or more entity to perform actions on the modules and compile the modules into a single dossier after reviewed by the assigned entities (Williams [0085]). See “Upon receipt of the electronic notice or on some periodic basis, the Physician 308 or an authorized member of the Physician's Staff 312 processes the queue of partially complete forms awaiting Part B 110 to be completed.” Where the queue is the dossier.
Claim 21
Modified Williams and Rockey disclose the limitations above. Modified Rockey further teaches:
wherein in case the reviewer rejects the submission, the processing unit allows the doer to rectify errors in the corresponding data and subsequently allows the doer to upload the updated submission data for the review of the reviewer (Rockey [0010]). See at least “Review-This term is used to describe action taken by the first reviewer, additional reviewer, or final approver. This action can include, but is not limited to, review, approve, approve with comments, accept, accept with comments, revise and resubmit, reject, make corrections noted, no action taken, and review for accuracy.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of limiting those providing credentials and authorization to just the specific parts of specific instances of the forms, as taught by Williams, the details of access rights, as taught by Rockey, to improve the approval chain process (Rockey [0003]).
Claim 22
Modified Williams and Rockey disclose the limitations above. Modified Williams further teaches:
wherein the method comprises the steps of: generating, by the processing unit, product-wise and country-wise renewal status and renewal alerts based on a number of days left for renewal (Williams [0026]); See at least “Treatment review (re-certification and change orders) may be updated via the electronic format as need indicates. “
Modified Williams does not explicitly teach the alert. Modified Rockey teaches:
displaying a color-coded alert for the renewal on a display of the electronic device (Rockey [0027]). See at least “Email notifications are automatically generated through the unique history to keep every person or organization who has participated in the particular submittal' s approval process informed in real time of the actions of the persons or organizations downstream in the approval chain.”
EXAMINER NOTE: Although the limitation has been addressed in view of prior art, the Examiner notes that the particular type of alert (i.e. “color coded” as claimed) is considered non-functional descriptive material, of which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method in such a way as to establish a new and unobvious functional relationship with the method as claimed. As such, the non-functional descriptive material limitation can be given little to no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05. The functional limitation is alert. The reference cited teaches this. Furthermore, the “color coded” is not positively recited as actually being used to change or affect the manner of alert and is a design choice. In Gulack, cited by Appellants, the printed matter (digits) would not achieve its educational purposes without the band, and the band without the printed matter would similarly be unable to produce the desired result. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, by contrast, the printed matter (1.e., matrix barcode) does not depend on the mat, and the mat does not depend on the barcode. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As the Gulack court pointed out, “[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1385.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of limiting those providing credentials and authorization to just the specific parts of specific instances of the forms, as taught by Williams, the details of access rights, as taught by Rockey, to improve the approval chain process (Rockey [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights